Complete works of samuel.., p.360
Complete Works of Samuel Butler, page 360
“SACKVILLE STREET, June 18th, [1821?].
“Mr. Weld Forester presents his compliments to the gentlemen at Shrewsbury School, and begs to assure them that, should his Majesty come to Willey on his way to Ireland, he will with pleasure state their request, and communicate the King’s answer to Dr. Butler, but at the same time begs to acquaint them that at present his Majesty’s intentions are to go to Ireland by sea.
“To THE HEAD BOY OF THE FREE SCHOOL, SHREWSBURY.”
FROM THE REV. REGINALD HEBER, AFTERWARDS BISHOP OF CALCUTTA.
(Original in possession of Mrs. G. L. Bridges and Miss Butler.)
“July 27th, [1821].
“DEAR SIR, — I feel I am taking a great liberty with you, but I trust that the anxiety I naturally feel for the success of my brother in his present contest for the University of Oxford may be my apology for thus intruding to request your friendly interest in his favour with any of your pupils who have votes for Oxford. Great as is the number of the distinguished scholars whom you have sent to your own University, I am well aware that ours is also beholden to you for many, and I know too well the affection and respect with which all your pupils regard you in after-life not to be convinced that your good word (should you think fit to exert it in favour of my brother) must be of very considerable service to him. At all events, in a contest which ought at all events to be swayed by opinion, and success in which has generally had some reference to literary reputation, it will be a material encouragement and comfort to us, whichever way the struggle is decided, to believe that we have the good wishes of Dr. Butler. I arrived in Shrewsbury too late to call on you this evening, and must set out again for town to-morrow at six, which must plead my excuse for this hasty note.
“A letter will reach me at any time during the next fortnight at 18, Charles Street, St. James’s.”
FROM LORD SPENCER.
“PLYMOUTH DOCKS, August 5th, 1821.
“DEAR SIR, — I received your letter of the 31st of July just as I was setting off from the Isle of Wight to come to this place by sea, and I now take the earliest opportunity of thanking you for it, as well as for your former one of July 3rd, which I postponed acknowledging till I judged you were returned to Shrewsbury from your northern excursion; and I should have written to you in a few days even if I had not again heard from you. I have to return you very sincere thanks for your description of the Greek Testament of 1638, which I have no doubt must be an edition of considerable rarity, notwithstanding the low price assigned to it by Brunet. I am pretty sure that I have not a copy of this edition, but I am unwilling to deprive you of it, as it is so well calculated to hold a place on the shelves of a scholar and a divine. However, if you are not unwilling to transfer it to my collection, which is already rich in editions of the Scriptures, perhaps you will allow me to propose to you in exchange some Aldine edition of which you may be in want, and of which I have several that are duplicates, besides those which were sold at my late sale, most of which, as I am informed, have been purchased for you, which induces me to suppose that you are collecting that class of books: if this proposal should suit you, I will take measures for sending you a list of such as I may have for your selection, and shall be very happy to find that I can offer you anything you may want in return for your very obliging offer to give me up this Testament.
“I am well aware (though I never saw it) of the existence of the copy of Walton’s Polyglott with Castellani’s Lexicon on L. P. in the library of Shrewsbury School. It is very seldom that the Lexicon is to be found with the Polyglott in that state, and I myself know but of two other such copies — namely, that in the British Museum, which was a presentation copy to Charles II., and that in the library of St. Paul’s Cathedral, which was a presentation copy to James II. when Duke of York. I have a copy, which I bought at Paris, which wants the Lexicon, and there is another similar one in our late King’s private library at Buckingham House: there is also one in the royal library at Paris equally defective. I should be glad to know whether the Shrewsbury copy has the dedication to the King, as also whether in the preface it has the original paragraph acknowledging the remission of the paper duty by the Protector, or that paragraph as it was corrected after the Restoration, in which the Protector’s title is omitted. My copy is of the latter description.”
* * * * *
The letter of August (?), 1821, to an assistant master has been already given in the introductory chapter.
A copy of a letter re the alterations made by the committee in the inscription written by Dr. Butler for the monument to his ever most affectionately remembered master Dr. James now in Rugby Chapel, with the inscription as originally written by Dr. Butler and again as it stands at present, will be found in the British Museum among Dr. Butler’s papers under date October 5th, 1821. The original is at Rugby School.
FROM A PAPER HEADED “STATEMENT OF S — E —— — ‘s BEHAVIOUR.”
“October 31 st, 1821.
* * * * *
“A preposter is one of the first eight boys to whom the master delegates a certain share of authority, in whom he reposes confidence, and whose business it is to keep the boys in order, to prevent all kinds of mischief and impropriety, and to give up the names of offenders to Dr. Butler, either when called upon by him, or without such requisition as often as they see cause.”
The spelling of the word “prepostor” occasions me some uneasiness. I believe it is usually spelt either “pre-” or “prae-postors,” but Dr. Kennedy used always to write “praepostors,” while Dr. Butler, generally if not always, in his drafts, wrote “preposters.” In his printed papers I see he spells it “prepostors.”
Stoves, it seems, were only beginning to find their way into churches, and that not without opposition.
TO THE REV. H. SIMS.
“TONSTALL, DERBYSHIRE, October 31st 1821.
“REV. SIR, — I beg to acknowledge the favour of your letter yesterday. Having in my charge recommended the adoption of stoves in churches, you may be sure I can have no objection to the use of them; but as I do not infer from your letter that the stove in your church, though generally acceptable, was approved by the vote of a parish meeting, it would, I think, save much trouble and uneasiness were you to adopt this measure now, which appears to me the most ready and indeed regular way of proceeding. If it is approved by the majority of your parishioners in vestry, I trust all altercation and dispute on the matter will be at an end; if rejected, you would, I presume, hardly wish to persevere in a measure which is not acceptable to the greater part of your parishioners.”
* * * * *
The charge above referred to does not appear to have been published. There is no copy in the British Museum, nor have I found it among Dr. Butler’s private collection of his published charges and sermons, nor yet among his MSS.
FROM MISS MONEY.
“November 13th, 1821.
“As you are one of the gifted persons who know everything (either by inspiration or industry), so it is very fair you should pay the penalty of being wiser, wittier, and cleverer than your neighbours by submitting to have the knowledge you possess plucked out of you. As I scorn little insidious ways, I shall, John Bull fashion, bolt my battering-ram in your face at once; and if the matter I am in pursuit of is in you, I have no doubt of its flying out at the first fire. A friend of ours has got a coin of which he cannot obtain any authentic knowledge, and therefore he concludes it to be scarce. It is a gold angel of James II., of very pure ore, and in perfect condition. It is the size of a half-guinea, now weighs one pennyweight and six grains, and has a hole drilled at the top, by which it seems to have been worn as a charm. One side represents St. Michael and the Dragon, with the inscription ‘sou DEO GLORIA,’ or ‘Soli Deo Gloria,’ for I have not patience to write the characters properly; the other side has a ship in full sail, and in the same characters ‘Jaco II. D: G: M: Brit: et. Hi: Rex.’ When this piece was coined is a doubt, Ruding does not allow there was a coinage of gold angels in England after Charles, I think; but these letters are particularly clear and unworn. If you can throw any light on this momentous question, I shall feel obliged; and if you can point out any book where the little gentleman is depicted, still more so: the numismatists here are all at fault.
“It is so long since we heard from you, and I am sure the fault does not lie on my side, though I do not insinuate where I think it does. I scarcely know what inquiries to make. You may have had a half-dozen children and a dozen grandchildren — buried one wife and married another — bought an estate and built a conventicle — turned Methodist, or accompanied the King to Hanover — or, what is much more likely, like the poor little innocent mouse, ‘ have set fire to your tail, and burnt down your house’ — in fact I do not know how the world has wagged with you at all.”
On inquiry at the coin-room of the British Museum, I learn that the coin above described was one of those struck specially for touching persons afflicted with “the king’s evil.”
FROM BARON MERIAN.
“November, 1821.
* * * * *
“Have you received the Tripartitum from M. Nicholls, Cambridge? They are now come to the manifest apprehension that there is and ever was but one language in this world, and that whatever we call tongues, idioms, dialects, etc., are nothing else but forms and modifications (by time and distance) of the said universal language, which, as H. Grotius says, nullibi est integrum sed ubique sparsum. And you will own that this way of considering the matter not only perfectly agrees with Scripture, but is the sole one which does so. For if you admit different springs of language, you must admit different Adams. Now, ex opposito, if one Adam has been sufficient to procreate in the course of centuries the Englishman and the Negro, I should like to know why one type of oration might not have spread and branched out successively into those numerous lingoes we perceive to-day.
“But say you, Very well, a priori sed, quieritur a posteriori; where is the resemblance? Where are the lineaments, the family features, the analogy, between the Samojed’s and the Welshman’s chatter?
“It is everywhere, my dear friend; it is most striking, most irrefragable, not resting upon reasoning and atqui ergo, but upon plain palpable facts, numberless instances, and an indivisible thorough concatenation. Vide the Tripartitum and its 2nd and 3rd vols., which comprehend the Orient.
“I gave Mr. H[ughes] a book and map for you you’ll not dislike — the Geography of the Greek Prepositions.
* * * * *
“Consummate scholars like Dr. Parr cannot relish this mode; it is too different from what they have learnt and taught for many years with applause. It throws together what they carefully distinguish; it is only a base and foundation, and they are busy about the top and ornaments.”
TO SIR B. BLOOMFIELD.
“December 3rd, 1821.
“Dr. Butler presents his compliments to Sir B. Bloomfield, and begs to say that he was not aware that the boys of Shrewsbury School had presumed to petition his Majesty “Dr. Butler will be most happy to testify his duty to his Majesty by obedience to his Majesty’s commands, but he humbly begs leave to state that the vacations at Shrewsbury School are already long; and that if he were allowed to divide the fortnight between the Christmas and summer vacations, it would be attended with less disadvantage to the boys, and indeed with much more convenience to himself, as it would give him an additional week for a journey to the Continent next summer. If Dr. Butler hears nothing to the contrary from Sir B. Bloomfield, he will adopt this arrangement at the ensuing vacation.”
* * * * *
CHAPTER XIV. UNIVERSITY REFORM.
Two Pamphlets signed “Eubulus.” — Correspondence, January 30th, 1822 — June 16th, 1822.
EARLY in 1822, when the movement in favour of establishing a Classical Tripos at Cambridge was gathering to a head, Dr. Butler, writing under the pseudonym of “Eubulus,” published a pamphlet entitled Thoughts on the Present System of Academic Education in the University of Cambridge* So strictly did he preserve his incognito that he did not confide the secret even to his most intimate friends resident in Cambridge, Tillbrook, Hughes, and R. W. Evans. The only persons whom he appears to have taken into his confidence were Baron Merian, James Tate of Richmond, and Francis Hodgson.
Moreover, he adopted a ruse on this occasion which shows him to have been particularly anxious to conceal his identity. He invariably spells “judgement” as it should be spelt, i e with an e in the middle of the word. He would as soon have written “enlargment” as “judgment”; in this pamphlet, however, he has allowed “judgment” to stand, no doubt as believing that no one who saw the word thus spelt would dream of suspecting him to be the author. This anxiety to escape detection shows that the writer knew himself to be writing treasonably; he must have known that what he was saying about mathematics applied quite as forcibly to classics; and that if his principles were once admitted, they could end in nothing but in the system of modern sides, and of other practical reforms, the progress of which, though rapid in these last years, leaves still room for development. Indeed, from several of Baron Merian’s letters, it appears that Dr. Butler intended to pursue the subject of University reform as far and as fast as prudence would allow; and probably he would have done so had he not ere long undertaken the conduct of the School lawsuit, of which I will say more later.
It was no doubt because Monk scented its want of finality that he was so bitter against Dr. Butler’s pamphlet. What Dr. Butler meant to convey was that the education of his time was too like the horny tip which an embryo chicken grows to its beak in order to break through its shell, and then throws away. The foremost classical teacher then living in this country could hardly be expected to disparage openly the system which it was his duty to adopt. I have heard the late Canon W. G. Humphry say, “Dr. Butler certainly did succeed in making us believe that Latin and Greek were the one thing worth living for.” It was his business to do this, but he would never have succeeded as he did if he had appeared as the author of a pamphlet the scepticism of which was so transparent. Hence no doubt the, for him, very unusual reserve he manifested on this occasion.
The following extracts may suffice to show the drift of the pamphlet: —
“On an average for the last three years a hundred and forty-six men enter the senate-house annually at the usual degree time.
“Of these fifty-two obtain honours, of whom nineteen are wranglers or proficients in mathematics, nineteen are senior optimes or second-rate mathematicians, and fourteen junior optimés or smatterers.
“What are the remaining ninety-four? What have they to show for an education of three years and a quarter, at an expense which cannot be short of £700? What have they got in religion, ethics, metaphysics, history, classics, jurisprudence? Who can tell? For except the short examination of one day in Locke, Paley, and Butler in the senate-house, the University must be supposed to know nothing of their progress in these things. Their University examination for their degree is in mathematics; and if they have got four books of Euclid (or even less), can do a sum in arithmetic, and solve a simple equation, they are deemed qualified for their degree — that is to say, the University pronounces this a sufficient progress, after three years and a quarter of study.
“So much for the πολλοί, the vulous ignobile of the mathematical students, among whom I include what are commonly called gulph men — that is, men who can answer and will not, and who are therefore entitled to no distinction in the view now taken of an University examination.
“Let us look back to those distinguished with academic honours.
“Of the junior optimés, do any bring their reading in mathematics to after-use?
“Of the senior optimés, do any two in each year keep up and pursue their mathematical learning, so as to make farther proficiency in it after they have taken their degree?
“Of the wranglers, do many of the lower wranglers, and ail or nearly all the higher, pursue their mathematical studies farther than to qualify for fellowship examination, which at some colleges, as at Trinity, for example, are partly mathematical? In fact, do more than two-thirds of the wranglers pursue their mathematical studies after they have taken their degrees?
“If they do not, then all the fruits of the three years and a quarter of study, and all the expenses of a hundred and forty-six men, amounting to above £100,000 (which, indeed, a juster computation would reckon as £136,000), are concentrated, as far as any literary benefit results from them, in about twelve or fifteen individuals.
“Of these I cannot be supposed to speak or think disrespectfully, when I ask, Of what use to them are their mathematics, without the walls of the University, in common life?
“How many Cambridge mathematicians distinguish themselves by bringing their mathematics to bear upon the useful arts?
“Is it true that they, generally speaking, turn their mathematics to any account, except that of speculative amusement or academic contention? —
“They may be, and no doubt often are, very ingenious and acute men; but does that ingenuity and acuteness tell, for the most part, to any great moral, political, or social purpose?
“Are not, in fact, the greater number of calculations and combinations by which mathematics are brought to bear upon the arts made by men who have not received an academic education?
“Are not practical mathematics the great source of useful inventions? and are not the Cambridge mathematics almost exclusively speculative?
“Take a junior or senior optime, or even a wrangler, into an irregular field with a common land-surveyor, and ask them severally to measure it; which will do it soonest and best?
“Let one of each of these academic graduates and a practical sailor be sailing towards an unknown coast; which will soonest make a correct observation?
“Build a bridge across the Thames; who will do it best — Mr. Rennie, or a committee of Senior Wranglers?
